|
| | 12/18/2018 |
| CV-17-0322-PR | CONKLIN ET UX v MEDTRONIC INC ET AL | OPINION |
| John Pelander, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur
|
| |
|
| | 12/10/2018 |
| CR-93-0377-AP | STATE OF ARIZONA v CHARLES MICHAEL HEDLUND | OPINION |
| Clint Bolick, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; Garye L Vasquez, Dissent
|
| |
|
| | 12/6/2018 |
| CV-18-0205-AP/EL | LEACH v. REAGAN/CLEAN ENERGY FOR A HEALTHY ARIZONA | OPINION |
| Ann Scott Timmer, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur in part; Dissent in part; Clint Bolick, Concur in part; Dissent in part; John R. Lopez, Concur in part; Dissent in part
|
| JUSTICE TIMMER authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL, and JUSTICE PELANDER joined. CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, joined by JUSTICE PELANDER, filed a concurring opinion. JUSTICE PELANDER filed a concurring opinion. JUSTICE GOULD, joined by JUSTICES BOLICK and LOPEZ, filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Per ASC Order Filed on December 6, 2018:
CV-18-0205-AP/EL and CV-18-0230-AP/EL are consolidated. CV-18-0205-AP/EL is designated as the primary case number.
|
|
| | 12/3/2018 |
| CV-18-0101-PR | PHOENIX CITY PROSECUTOR v. HON. LOWERY/CLAUDETTE CRAIG | OPINION |
| Andrew W. Gould, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; Karl C. Eppich, Concur
|
| |
|
| | 11/29/2018 |
| CV-18-0057-PR | HOPI TRIBE v ARIZONA SNOWBOWL RESORT et al | OPINION |
| John Pelander, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur; Scott Bales, Dissent; Clint Bolick, Dissent
|
| |
|
| | 11/21/2018 |
| CV-18-0222-AP/EL | JOSHUA STANWITZ ET AL v REAGAN/OUTLAW DIRTY MONEY | OPINION |
| John R. Lopez, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur
|
| This Opinion Amends the Opinion filed on November 21, 2018.
On page 5, paragraph 11:
Incorrect:
¶11 The Committee and Petitioners filed expedited appeals in this Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-161(B). The Committee challenges the constitutionality of §§ 19-102.01(A) and 19-118(C), and the trial court’s decision to disqualify the non-appearing subpoenaed circulators’ petition signatures. Because the parties agree that the validity of the signatures gathered by the non-appearing circulators is dispositive as to whether the Initiative qualified for inclusion on the November 2018 ballot, we do not consider Petitioners’ appeal.
Correct:
¶11 The Committee and Petitioners filed expedited appeals in this Court pursuant to A.R.S. § 19-122(A). The Committee challenges the constitutionality of §§ 19-102.01(A) and 19-118(C), and the trial court’s decision to disqualify the non-appearing subpoenaed circulators’ petition signatures. Because the parties agree that the validity of the signatures gathered by the non-appearing circulators is dispositive as to whether the Initiative qualified for inclusion on the November 2018 ballot, we do not consider Petitioners’ appeal. Constitutionality Decision
Upholding the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 19-118(C), which requires registered petition circulators properly served with a subpoena to provide evidence in an action regarding circulation of petitions and invalidates signatures collected by a circulator who fails to appear or produce documents as provided for in the subpoena. |
|
| | 11/1/2018 |
| CV-18-0187-AP/EL | LOUIS HOFFMAN et al v MICHELE REAGAN et al | OPINION |
| Scott Bales, Author; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; John R. Lopez, Concur
|
| |
|
| | 10/26/2018 |
| CV-18-0218-AP/EL | JAIME MOLERA et al v REAGAN/INVEST IN EDUCATION | OPINION |
| Scott Bales, Dissent; Ann Scott Timmer, Dissent
|
| PER CURIAM |
|
| | 9/27/2018 |
| CR-93-0362-AP | STATE OF ARIZONA v JAMES ERIN MCKINNEY | OPINION |
| Andrew W. Gould, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; Robert M. Brutinel, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Garye L Vasquez
|
| |
|
| | 9/25/2018 |
| CR-14-0351-AP | STATE OF ARIZONA v JOSE ALEJANDRO ACUNA VALENZUELA | OPINION |
| Robert M. Brutinel, Author; Scott Bales, Concur; John Pelander, Concur; Ann Scott Timmer, Concur; Clint Bolick, Concur; Andrew W. Gould, Concur; Kenton D. Jones, Concur
|
| Constitutionality Decision
Upholding the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-751(F)(12) against the challenge that it provides inadequate guidance, is overly vague, applies to more than only a subclass of defendants, and does not require a sufficient causal relationship between the aggravator and offense.
Affirming the holding of State v. Hidalgo, 241 Ariz. 543 (2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1054 (2018), that the Arizona death penalty statutory scheme does not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or article 2, sections 4 and 15 of the Arizona constitution. |
|
|